Federal spending is at an all time high with over a trillion and a half dollars being added to the debt each year.

So the point is that Harold Camping and his claims will be sneered at and people will not give him credibility in the future. Yet no matter how ridiculous or odd his claims seemed, he was never costing people their jobs or putting unborn grandchildren into debt.

When does the mocking start for those who promised unemployment would be 5.5% by the time their reelection rolled around for the cool cost of only $1 trillion dollars? Who promised to restore fiscal sanity and has run the country off the rails with massive deficits? Who's party hasn't even attempted a federal budget for the last TWO YEARS?

I'll be happy to mock Harold Camping. When the hell are people going to start mocking the claims and promises of our president and his party?

BARACK OBAMA IS AN EVIL SHIT IT'S ALL HIS FAULT AND IT WAS HIS FAULT BEFORE THE ELECTION TOO

Yes, yes, we understand now, you really like this graph, you love the Republican Party vewwy, vewwy much and it was vewwy wude of the nasty liberal man to win the election, and the whole world's going to shit, and it's ALL BARACK OBAMA'S FAULT, and the whole economic situation in America can be understood with the aid of two graphs and it's basically all about spending, even though austerity hasn't saved Greece or Ireland or Portugal or even Britain.

trumptman, do you have a job? You behave like a full-time political propagandist.

I mean why not act like a insane loon because there is no serious and rational way to defend the actions of this administration. You've provided a fine example of the best way to avoid the facts of the matter. Ad-homs, smears, rhetorical gossip posing as questions, etc.

There's no doubt that they hoped and believed that the economy would be doing better, and unemployment especially would be lower. And although one possibility is that the stimulus spending didnt work, another possibility is that the economy was worse than they thought.

But I want to get to the fairy tale idea here. You say the fairy tale is Keynesian economics, but there's something much simpler than any kind of ism.

I want you to tell me if there any economists at all who dispute this: When a recession and financial crisis hit, and a ton of money is gone from the economy, the way to make up for some of that loss is for the government to temporarily increase deficit spending. Now a whole bunch of people that otherwise might have been out of work have jobs from that government spending.

Is that what you think is a fairy tale? The conservatives and tea partiers say that the way to fix the economy is to pay teachers and police and garbage collectors less. That's not a fairy tale, but spending during a recession is?

It's your DUTY as a patriotic American to see the Republican Party re-elected, and it all hinges on your posting that graph—again and again and again.

Take your simplistic analysis and bury it somewhere bleak and wind-blasted. It is dickish.

Austerity measures have utterly failed in Greece, Portugal and Ireland. All right? They are the poster children for austerity and spending cuts. And they are fucked. And they are not improving. They should have spent. They are jealous of your growth. America's out of a recession. They are not.

I want you to tell me if there any economists at all who dispute this: When a recession and financial crisis hit, and a ton of money is gone from the economy, the way to make up for some of that loss is for the government to temporarily increase deficit spending.

Take your simplistic analysis and bury it somewhere bleak and wind-blasted. It is dickish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Austerity measures have utterly failed in Greece, Portugal and Ireland. All right? They are the poster children for austerity and spending cuts. And they are fucked. And they are not improving. They should have spent. They are jealous of your growth. America's out of a recession. They are not..

I would say that it is your analysis of all these situations that is simplistic here. You need to look at the whole picture.

While the proximate cause of the troubles in these countries may appear to be the austerity measures and there's certainly plenty of Keynesian "thinkers" (and their useful idiots) who have promoted this storyline...the real story, the deeper cause, is about the massive debt issues and some of the bailouts (of banks in Ireland at least) that have led these countries to where they are now.

I'm always amused when I hear a liberal spouting off about how the right has a war on science and how anti-intellectual they are. Then the left completely ignores sound economic science in favor of dogma and special interest groups.

While the proximate cause of the troubles in these countries may appear to be the austerity measures and there's certainly plenty of Keynesian "thinkers" (and their useful idiots) who have promoted this storyline...the real story, the deeper cause, is about the massive debt issues and some of the bailouts (of banks in Ireland at least) that have led these countries to where they are now.

No one is suggesting that austerity measures are the cause of these crises. That is the fault of the banks, largely, and the implication of individual states their crises of liquidity.

No, austerity measures were supposed to fix these problems. And they haven't.

Look at, say, oh... the United States of America, now out of a recession by all indicators. Job growth follows by a lag of months.

No one is suggesting that austerity measures are the cause of these crises. That is the fault of the banks, largely, and the implication of individual states their crises of liquidity.

No, austerity measures were supposed to fix these problems. And they haven't.

Look at, say, oh... the United States of America, now out of a recession by all indicators. Job growth follows by a lag of months.

Hey ho.

I guess it's easy to blame the banks. It avoids having to take any responsibility.

Anyone with half a brain knows that when their bank account goes to zero they either have a spending problem or an income problem. Most of us know that when we live beyond our means the problem is on the spending side. I'm not really sure how any society can grow and thrive when a significant amount of the population are on government handouts.

No one is suggesting that austerity measures are the cause of these crises. That is the fault of the banks, largely, and the implication of individual states their crises of liquidity.

No, austerity measures were supposed to fix these problems. And they haven't.

Well I agree that if anyone claimed the austerity approach would be an immediate short-term fix were being optimistic (especially given the massive debt problems.) The more correct statement is that austerity is the correct response. Period. The positive effects might be a bit longer term but they likely be overall better. The Keynesian solution is a short-term fix. Create another bubble. Kick the can down the road. It might appear to be "good" short-term but it is not for the long-term.

There's no doubt that they hoped and believed that the economy would be doing better, and unemployment especially would be lower. And although one possibility is that the stimulus spending didnt work, another possibility is that the economy was worse than they thought.

There's also th view that recessions are caused due to imbalances in the economy and that stimulating or taking government action to prevent those balances from redressing themselves prolongs the problem.

Quote:

But I want to get to the fairy tale idea here. You say the fairy tale is Keynesian economics, but there's something much simpler than any kind of ism.

I want you to tell me if there any economists at all who dispute this: When a recession and financial crisis hit, and a ton of money is gone from the economy, the way to make up for some of that loss is for the government to temporarily increase deficit spending. Now a whole bunch of people that otherwise might have been out of work have jobs from that government spending.

The economic consensus on the time was roughly divided equally about whether it would help or not. Cato.org ran a full page ad (PDF) in the NY Times of economits who had declared against themselves against the stimulus.

Quote:

Is that what you think is a fairy tale? The conservatives and tea partiers say that the way to fix the economy is to pay teachers and police and garbage collectors less. That's not a fairy tale, but spending during a recession is?

It's also possible to minimize cuts in those areas. Obviously since the government doesn't want to shrink they attempt to maximize the pain first to scare away opposition. In California there have been hundreds of articles uncovering all manner of waste. People working double jobs, getting paid pvertime due to taking a sick day to reach their 40 hours, renting empty buildings, all sorts of double billing, etc. This could all be addressed before touching the areas you mention but they won't because they protect those and hit the most public areas first. Couldn't we do with a few less lifeguards earning $150,000? Sure. Even if we provide a defined benefit retirement versus the now common 401k's of private industry, is it really fair to allow public sector employees to retire at 50?

The other point is that if everyone else is taking a hit, why shouldn't public sector employees? I mean I understand that AS a public sector employee. I've had friends lose their jobs, or even lose their homes. If they are having to tighten their belts three notches, my one notch is quite understandable at minimum. Does it stink compared to an ideal state, sure but it is far better than the alternatives and also than what most people have had to endure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I would say that it is your analysis of all these situations that is simplistic here. You need to look at the whole picture.

While the proximate cause of the troubles in these countries may appear to be the austerity measures and there's certainly plenty of Keynesian "thinkers" (and their useful idiots) who have promoted this storyline...the real story, the deeper cause, is about the massive debt issues and some of the bailouts (of banks in Ireland at least) that have led these countries to where they are now.

The biggest issue all of them are dealing with, and the United States is and will be no different is that they continue to have that Boomer Blindspot, they want to rob the present to continue to pay the past. Declaring you can lay off all the cops so Grandpa can get his deficit financed retirement doesn't work. There ends up being no one to pay for the deficit. This is why true entitlement reform is at the crux of anything attempting to truly declare itself to be an austerity measure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack

I'm always amused when I hear a liberal spouting off about how the right has a war on science and how anti-intellectual they are. Then the left completely ignores sound economic science in favor of dogma and special interest groups.

It's almost like you got the point of the thread and didn't have to use all caps, colors or call names.

Strange how some people (no names mentioned of course) constantly obsess about the imperfections of Keynesian economics while ignoring the unmitigated disaster that is the Milton Friedman, or Chicago School model.

That is, unless creating mass unemployment, untold misery and serial collapses of formerly stable economies, while systematically diverting nations' wealth and resources to a mafia-like elite of oligarchs and banksters can be defined as "success".

Uh, not.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Strange how some people (no names mentioned of course) constantly obsess about the imperfections of Keynesian economics while ignoring the unmitigated disaster that is the Milton Friedman, or Chicago School model.

That is, unless creating mass unemployment, untold misery and serial collapses of formerly stable economies, while systematically diverting nations' wealth and resources to a mafia-like elite of oligarchs and banksters can be defined as "success".

Uh, not.

Curious. Isn't all that stuff happening now under the Keynesian model?

Strange how some people (no names mentioned of course) constantly obsess about the imperfections of Keynesian economics while ignoring the unmitigated disaster that is the Milton Friedman, or Chicago School model.

That is, unless creating mass unemployment, untold misery and serial collapses of formerly stable economies, while systematically diverting nations' wealth and resources to a mafia-like elite of oligarchs and banksters can be defined as "success".

Could it be that you've misinterpreted the causes and effects of certain events and circumstances?

Strange how some people (no names mentioned of course) constantly obsess about the imperfections of Keynesian economics while ignoring the unmitigated disaster that is the Milton Friedman, or Chicago School model.

That is, unless creating mass unemployment, untold misery and serial collapses of formerly stable economies, while systematically diverting nations' wealth and resources to a mafia-like elite of oligarchs and banksters can be defined as "success".

The University of Chicago department, considered one of the world's foremost economics departments, has fielded more Nobel Prize laureates and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university.

What's more, in contrast to Barack Obama, they probably earned them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Is a Nobel Prize now an indicator of merit?

Depends on who you talk to.

I'd say the peace prize has become a joke. Possibly some of the others too.

But if you talk to someone who regularly touts Paul Krugman* constantly reminding us that he's got a Nobel prize in economics as if that settles the argument once and for all but ignores the fact that Krugman often pontificates on matters unrelated to his Nobel prize (free trade)...and, furthermore, ignores the fact that there are other Nobel prize winners (e.g., Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Ronald Coase, et al) who hold very different views and understandings in economics...well...then I don't know...you tell me.

*Krugman is certainly right on some economic matters. He once famously quipped that, "If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'." But he's become a transparently biased political hack and a bit of a cartoon at that.

I'd say the peace prize has become a joke. Possibly some of the others too.

But if you talk to someone who regularly touts Paul Krugman* constantly reminding us that he's got a Nobel prize in economics as if that settles the argument once and for all but ignores the fact that Krugman often pontificates on matters unrelated to his Nobel prize (free trade)...and, furthermore, ignores the fact that there are other Nobel prize winners (e.g., Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Ronald Coase, et al) who hold very different views and understandings in economics...well...then I don't know...you tell me.

*Krugman is certainly right on some economic matters. He once famously quipped that, "If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'." But he's become a transparently biased political hack and a bit of a cartoon at that.

Sorry to make this observation but many others here you included bring up Krugman far more than I do.

I just said I trust the Nobel winning economist more than I do the anonymous internet amature nobody.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

There's no doubt that they hoped and believed that the economy would be doing better, and unemployment especially would be lower. And although one possibility is that the stimulus spending didnt work, another possibility is that the economy was worse than they thought.

It sounds like you're quoting Biden's speech from 2009. He said exactly the same thing. Of course, that's complete and unbelievable garbage. They knew the data and trends like everyone else did. Please.

Quote:

But I want to get to the fairy tale idea here. You say the fairy tale is Keynesian economics, but there's something much simpler than any kind of ism.

I want you to tell me if there any economists at all who dispute this: When a recession and financial crisis hit, and a ton of money is gone from the economy, the way to make up for some of that loss is for the government to temporarily increase deficit spending. Now a whole bunch of people that otherwise might have been out of work have jobs from that government spending.

Is that what you think is a fairy tale? The conservatives and tea partiers say that the way to fix the economy is to pay teachers and police and garbage collectors less. That's not a fairy tale, but spending during a recession is?

I realize that was directed at trumptman, but I'd like to respond: It really depends on where the money is going and where it's coming from. If you're talking temporary loss of revenue from major tax cuts, then that can be effective. If you're talking about government spending, then no...that's ineffective. That is what is meant by the term "Keynesian." That type of stimulus simply doesn't work.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

So, which presidents care about the deficit? Which ones don't? Clinton had us on an awesome path...and Bush Jr obliterated his work. Bush Jr. even hid how deeply he fucked us with tactics to hide just how much future debt he put this country in. And it's Obama's fault he can't fix this in 3 years with Republicans acting like spoiled children trying to block every single move he makes?

OBAMACARE = DOLECARE 1994. Remember that Kerry quote that Republicans love to bring up? "I was for it before I was against it." REPUBLICANS WERE FOR OBAMACARE BEFORE THEY WERE AGAINST IT. They were for it from 1994 to the moment Obama opened his mouth and said that was what he wanted. Then, all of a sudden, SOCIALISM COMMUNISM ECONOMIC RAPE (which they acknowledge was partly America's fault for dressing the way she does).

Shut up, righties. Seriously. You haven't been serious about deficits until you thought they might be useful politically to rail against.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

As MJ says...what about Congress? The GOP controlled Congress and was responsible for the balanced budget during Clinton's term.

Quote:

So, which presidents care about the deficit? Which ones don't? Clinton had us on an awesome path...and Bush Jr obliterated his work.

See above. As for Bush, what caused the deficits? Was it revenue or spending? Hint: It was spending. One thing I will agree with is that Bush should have vetoed much more spending. And no, "Bush's wars" didn't cause the deficits then, either.

Quote:

Bush Jr. even hid how deeply he fucked us with tactics to hide just how much future debt he put this country in. And it's Obama's fault he can't fix this in 3 years with Republicans acting like spoiled children trying to block every single move he makes?

That's quite a warped view of reality you have there, sir. Bush's deficits were $250-$400 billion. Obama's are now 1.5 TRILLION. You mean to tell me Bush, who you claim is an idiot, "hid" a trillion dollars plus of spending per year?

Quote:

OBAMACARE = DOLECARE 1994. Remember that Kerry quote that Republicans love to bring up? "I was for it before I was against it." REPUBLICANS WERE FOR OBAMACARE BEFORE THEY WERE AGAINST IT. They were for it from 1994 to the moment Obama opened his mouth and said that was what he wanted. Then, all of a sudden, SOCIALISM COMMUNISM ECONOMIC RAPE (which they acknowledge was partly America's fault for dressing the way she does).

Wow, we're really all over the place here, aren't we? I'm not sure I see why you'd bring this up. Why are conservatives on these boards (and all Republicans) responsible for certain congressmen's political positions almost 20 years ago? And do you really expect us to believe that Dolecare=Obamacare? Sure, there are similar elements, but it's not "equal." And it didn't come to pass, anyway. But in your view, none of your 2 conservative acquaintances (nor any people that Tom Brokaw told you about) had objections...therefore all Republicans and conservatives are hypocrites.

Quote:

Shut up, righties. Seriously. You haven't been serious about deficits until you thought they might be useful politically to rail against.

False. Many on the Right have been railing against our debt and deficits for years. And there is a huge difference between sustainable deficits in the $400 billion range and explosive, destructive deficits in the $1.5 trillion range. One is regrettable and should be addressed. The other is destroying our country. But hey...it's all just because Bush didn't "carry the one."

The denial is palatable. You should really hear yourselves. "The economy was way worse than we thought." "George Bush screwed us!" "We saved the economy!" "A deficit 4x as high is really less than the previous ones."

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You really can't compare Republicans even from 15 years ago to Republicans of today. They might as well be a completely different party.

You make it sound like Democrats have been standing still. Some of us can remember when Gore was a Senator from the South who was pro-life and had a wife creating the PMRC to protect us all from vulger entertainment options.

The Democratic Party right now would never attempt to deal with the entertainment industry in that way today.

15 years ago you had Clinton attempting to lead DLC Democrats towards a nice middle ground. That doesn't even exist within the party in this day and age.